Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legal. Show all posts

Thursday, December 29, 2011

Synthetic Marijuana: Will the law ever catch up to science?


We have reached a point in our "war on drugs" where the laws fail to keep pace with the science behind designing and concealing these drugs.  That seems like a very emphatic statement from a guy who has no degree in science.  However, a story I discovered by the Washington Post has helped me reach this conclusion.  The article outlines how illegal drug chemists have successfully thwarted prosecution by using chemicals not on the drug schedule list set by the Drug Enforcement Agency to manufacture drugs like "spice".

The National Institute on Drug Abuse has this to say about "spice":
“Spice” is used to describe a diverse family of herbal mixtures marketed under many names, including K2, fake marijuana, Yucatan Fire, Skunk, Moon Rocks, and others. These products contain dried, shredded plant material and presumably, chemical additives that are responsible for their psychoactive (mind-altering) effects. Spice mixtures are sold in many countries in head shops, gas stations, and via the Internet, although their sale and use are illegal throughout most European countries. Easy access has likely contributed to Spice’s popularity. While Spice products are labeled “not for human consumption,” they are marketed to people who are interested in herbal alternatives to marijuana (cannabis).
The chemicals used to make "spice" and are of concern to the DEA are CP 47,497 and homologues,HU-210JWH-018, and JWH-073.  One chemical which should have caught your eye is HU-210.  It was recently listed in the Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011 which prohibits "the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance in schedule I or II or flunitrazepam by individuals having reasonable cause to believe that such substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States or into waters within 12 miles of the U.S. coast. Prohibits the manufacture or distribution of a listed chemical: (1) intending or knowing that it will be used to manufacture a controlled substance; and (2) intending, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe that the substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States." This is important to note because chemists have gotten smarter and realized they no longer need HU-210 or any of the other compounds to have similar effects.

Due to the ever-changing illicit drug landscape, Senate bill 1612 (Targeting Transnational Drug Trafficking Act of 2011) was drafted.  It would help federal prosecutors charge those who imported or made chemicals used for the explicit purpose of making these compounds.  According to the summary text of the bill,

"Makes it sufficient to prove a conspiracy to commit an offense that requires the person to intend, know, or have reasonable cause to believe that a controlled substance will be unlawfully imported into the United States if only one member of the conspiracy had such intention, knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe."

However, as the Post article demonstrates, there are problems within states who do not have similar laws. Many states use archaic laws which specifically identify the drug and its current chemical makeup. They often fail to take into account how many times drugs like "spice" can be illegal one moment and legal the next due to the countless ways to make the drug without using any banned compounds. This is what gives these drugs their current demand among users who want to be able to purchase the drug "legally" without fear of prosecution. Another problem for some jurisdictions is testing. If you're testing for a group of compounds but the ingredients have changed or are masked, it could make reaching definitive conclusions about test results more difficult or near impossible.

When I was a security officer inside a housing area, I came across several young people who used synthetic marijuana they claimed was for "aroma-therapy". They claimed because this "legal weed" was "legal" because it only contained the scent of marijuana and not the compounds. I did my research and found that to be true as long as that was all there was to it. However, "spice" is known to have a similar scent as these "aroma-therapy" agents. Coincidentally, you can purchase these products online or in "head shops" around the country.

Aromatherapy "legal weed" on display at a storefront in Mississippi

The only way we can proactively combat this trend is to work on solving its underlying societal and individual causes for demand.  By simply eliminating supply or reducing it, you do nothing but increase its demand and value.  I'm not saying legalize it.  However, I believe until we mitigate how we as a society have failed to provide our children with enough intellectually and emotionally satisfying stimulants (i.e. loving homes, forward-thinking academics, community involvement, etc.), we will always be "behind the curve" in this "war".

Saturday, May 10, 2008

COFFEE anyone?

According to IDG News, Microsoft has developed and distributed a program called COFFEE to help cops get around certain encryption software. The program called the Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor (COFEE) was sent to law enforcement last June and it's now being used by about 2,000 agents around the world for free.

The creator of the program is former LEO himself. Anthony Fung, senior regional manager for Asia Pacific in Microsoft's Internet Safety and Anti-Counterfeiting group, spent 12 years as a police officer in Hong Kong, with the final seven dedicated to fighting cybercrime. According to IDG, "When he joined Microsoft, he sought to devise a way that agents could do better at finding valuable information on computers used by cyber criminals."

COFFEE was spawned due to the advent of encryption software such as BitLocker which requires a password to gain access to a computer's encrypted data. Most law enforcement agencies are using a procedure which calls for the computer to be turned off and taken back to a lab. Security experts will tell you this is the last thing to do when dealing with an encrypted system. The courts have now allowed for the examination/imaging of computers while on-scene so officers and technicians can conduct a proper search.

Encryption software such as BitLocker or TrueCrypt use very advanced encryption algorithms. So advanced it would take a supercomputer countless years to even decrypt the data. Depending on the size of the drive and the level of encryption it would take a significant leap in computer technology to begin the decryption for most law enforcement agencies.

The article explains that COFEE is actually a set of software tools that can be loaded onto a USB drive.

Brad Smith, general counsel at Microsoft, called it a "Swiss Army knife for law enforcement officers," because it includes 150 tools. A law enforcement agent connects the USB drive to a computer at the scene of a crime and it takes a snapshot of important information on the computer. It can save information such as what user was logged on and for how long and what files were running at that time, Fung said. It can be used on a computer using any type of encryption software, not just BitLocker.

Previously, an officer might spend three or four hours digging up the information manually, but COFEE lets them do it in about 20 minutes, he said.

Taking the computer back to the lab is not a bad pratcice. It does have some advantages such as evidence integrity. You always ahve a copy of the original drive. You may not have the time in the field to make such an image.

COFFEE may or may not be tamper resistant and that causes some concern. Rather than depend on programs such as COFFEE, law enforcement can and should in some circumstances use standard evidence collection procedures along with some good old-fashioned police work. It should be noted agents in 15 countries including Poland, the Philippines, New Zealand and the U.S. are using COFEE, Microsoft said. In New Zealand, a forensics examiner recently used COFEE to find evidence that led to the arrest of an individual involved in trading child pornography, said Smith.

Smith and others spoke on Monday at the start of a three-day conference Microsoft is hosting for law enforcement officials at its Redmond, Washington headquarters, inviting U.S. and international police, prosecutors and representatives from agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Microsoft has been hosting the conferences, which invite feedback from the law enforcement agents, since 2006, Smith said.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Crazy FBI Child Pornographers!!

So, I'm glad the title caught your eyes. I've been a bit busy catching up on some professional obligations and finally made my way back to the blog. Let's take a look at this very interesting article from News.com.

The article details a supposed newly discovered technique the FBI is using to catch child pornographers. This new tactic involves "posting hyperlinks that purport to be illegal videos of minors having sex, and then raiding the homes of anyone willing to click on them." Worried the FBI is putting out its own version of porn to catch these guys? Don't worry because the supposed video files actually were gibberish and contained no illegal images. This is a technique most p2p investigators use to catch pirates.

There is legal precedence to use such tactics but it does raise some very interesting questions about entrapment and privacy. Just who did the FBI nab with this technique?
Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University who also taught history at La Salle University, was raided at home in February 2007 after he allegedly clicked on the FBI's hyperlink. Federal agents knocked on the door around 7 a.m., falsely claiming they wanted to talk to Vosburgh about his car. Once he opened the door, they threw him to the ground outside his house and handcuffed him.

Vosburgh was charged with violating federal law, which criminalizes "attempts" to download child pornography with up to 10 years in prison. Last November, a jury found Vosburgh guilty on that count, and a sentencing hearing is scheduled for April 22, at which point Vosburgh could face three to four years in prison.

Sounds like a cool idea right? You catch bad people who you can prove had an intent to view that material they believed to be on your site which they were led to believe would be child pornography. You get the address of your perpetrator and go arrest him/her.

Any one else see a potential problem? Well, you're not alone. A lot of people find it disturbing that all the FBI and/or any other law enforcement agency has to do is register a domain name and flaunt it through its name or hype as a safe harbor for individuals who may want to see this. The problem which lies in that is what happens to someone who say mistakenly enters the wrong URL and gets the FBI's sting site address. Not to mention how easily another person who get the address, thinks it may not be what it advertises, and "rickroll's" an adversary to that URL. For those of you unaware of "rickrolling", its when you're told in a message a link will take you to a page about flowers (which you want to see) and it then takes you to a Rick Astley video.

I know what you're thinking, "I'm legal beagle but even I can recognize this sort of law enforcement tactic is based on very thin layers of the law." So far, at least, attorneys defending the hyperlink-sting cases do not appear to have raised unlawful entrapment as a defense.

"Claims of entrapment have been made in similar cases, but usually do not get very far," said Stephen Saltzburg, a professor at George Washington University's law school. "The individuals who chose to log into the FBI sites appear to have had no pressure put upon them by the government...It is doubtful that the individuals could claim the government made them do something they weren't predisposed to doing or that the government overreached."

The outcome may be different, Saltzburg said, if the FBI had tried to encourage people to click on the link by including misleading statements suggesting the videos were legal or approved.

In the case mentioned previously, the prosecuotr relied on the federal child pornography law, which states the definition of "sexually explicit conduct" does not require that sex acts take place):

The first image depicted a pre-pubescent girl, fully naked, standing on one leg while the other leg was fully extended leaning on a desk, exposing her genitalia... The other image depicted four pre-pubescent fully naked girls sitting on a couch, with their legs spread apart, exposing their genitalia. Viewing this image, the jury could reasonably conclude that the four girls were posed in unnatural positions and the focal point of this picture was on their genitalia.... And, based on all this evidence, the jury found that the images were of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct, and certainly did not require a crystal clear resolution that defendant now claims was necessary, yet lacking.
The article also states, "Harvey Silverglate, a longtime criminal defense lawyer in Cambridge, Mass. and author of a forthcoming book on the Justice Department, replied: 'Because the courts have been so narrow in their definition of 'entrapment,' and so expansive in their definition of 'probable cause,' there is nothing to stop the Feds from acting as you posit.'"

About Us